High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:7359 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45776 of 2024 Applicant :- Bhanu @ Bhanu Pratap Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anjali Singh Tomer,Inder Pal Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Pal Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard Ms. Anjali Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jitendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.229 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Hathras Kotwali, District- Hathras, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 5. The informant had instituted the FIR stating that his brother was shot dead by the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons, namely, Amit Sharma and Priyanka, on 19.7.2024 at about 05:00 a.m. The informant is stated to have seen the incident alongwith his nephew Ashwani Upadhyay. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 7. The FIR is delayed by about more than four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 8. The prosecution story stands falsified from the fact that information about the said death was received at the police station and the same was entered in the GD of the same day at 06:10 a.m. The inquest proceedings were started the same morning and concluded at 09:05 a.m. The informant herein is the Panch witness no.1 to the inquest proceedings and he has categorically stated that the deceased person has been shot by some unknown person and he has not nominated the applicant or any other person whatsoever. 9. The FIR indicates other eye-witness to be nephew of the informant, Ashwani Upadhyay whose statement is very important for this case as he has not nominated the applicant to be the assailant rather he has stated that assailants were Mohit Pandit, Vishal Pandit, Rajat and Vishal Kashyap. He has further stated in his statement that his aunt Priyanka got the said offence committed by hatching conspiracy with the applicant and one Bhola Pachauri, as such, role of the applicant has been changed to that of hatching criminal conspiracy to murder. 10. It is a clear cut case of false implication and the applicant has simply been made an accused on the basis of apprehension in the mind of the informant that applicant had illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased person. 11. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. 12. The criminal history of the applicant stands explained as he has been enlarged on bail in the three cases assigned to him and one case under the Gangsters Act has subsequently been foisted at him, in which he has yet to apply for bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.7.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY: 13. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that applicant is named in the FIR and the FIR is also not delayed. It has been instituted within a reasonable time. Although, it is true that it was instituted after the completion of the inquest proceedings, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION: 14. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out. 15. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. 16. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. 17. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690. 18. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”. 19. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 20. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned State Law Officer. 21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that although applicant is named in the FIR, but informant has not whispered a single word about the incident at the time of inquest proceedings and also the fact that statement of other eye-witness mentioned in the FIR does not assign the role of firing to the applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 22. Let the applicant- Bhanu @ Bhanu Pratap Sharma involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 23. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 24. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad